This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Becky Sayles (talk | contribs) at 08:22, 11 August 2008 (→2008 Summer Olympics highlights). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 08:22, 11 August 2008 by Becky Sayles (talk | contribs) (→2008 Summer Olympics highlights)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)2008 Summer Olympics highlights
- 2008 Summer Olympics highlights (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)
An article for the 2008 Olympics already exists. Individual pages for the different sports already exist. A highlights article is not necessary, nor is it encyclopedic. Highlighting individual elements of such a large event will most definitely generate problems with Neutral point of view. Additionally it is inconsistent with Misplaced Pages:Manual of Style and with the articles for previous Olympic games and other athletic events.Becky Sayles (talk) 06:07, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
- Delete as nominator.Becky Sayles (talk) 06:25, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
- You are the nominator. We already know your position... Thankyoubaby (talk) 06:38, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
- Keep Very surprised this is even nominated. Thankyoubaby (talk) 06:11, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
- Why are you surprised? do you have any reason to support keeping it?Becky Sayles (talk) 06:36, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
- Comment Can we close this AfD yet? The article is obviously going to be kept. Benjaminx (talk) 07:25, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
- Again, it's been up for less than a day. Editors in other time zones should be given the opportunity to comment. Please attempt to discuss reasons for deleting or keeping this article.Becky Sayles (talk) 07:30, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
- Comment Can we close this AfD yet? The article is obviously going to be kept. Benjaminx (talk) 07:25, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
- Why are you surprised? do you have any reason to support keeping it?Becky Sayles (talk) 06:36, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
- Keep Not necessary to nominate this article for deletion. CoolKid1993 (talk) 06:19, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
- Any explanation for why it's not necessary?Becky Sayles (talk) 06:36, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
- Keep - very useful to readers... Chalisa (talk) 06:21, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
- user has less than 10 edits
- Speedy keep very poor nomination. —Anonymous Dissident 06:24, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
- user does not address nominationBecky Sayles (talk) 06:36, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks for that little note, but I don't need to be messaged on my talk page. I think this was a very poor nomination, firstly because it is a necessary article chronicling the progress of the 2008 Olympic Games. It meets the criteria for inclusion as it is a comprehensive tracking of the accrued gold medals, and this is within the encyclpedic "plane" in my experience. I strongly advise the nominator than haranguing the keepers will not result in a change of result for this AfD of an article that fully deserves to be kept and should not have been nominated in the first place. —Anonymous Dissident 07:40, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
- No article is "necessary", so it is unclear what you mean. Don't 2008 Summer Olympics and associated articles adequately chronicle the games? Why is it necessary to have it information in a format that seems motivated more by the editors who want to keep up with current events than by the people who will read it? What criteria for inclusion are you suggesting? Encyclopedias typically do not take this form, wikipedia is not a blog nor is it a news feed.Becky Sayles (talk) 07:55, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
- Misplaced Pages is not a paper encyclopedia. The article you mention does chronicle the games, but not as completely as the article you have nominated for deletion does. While the information on the nominated page is necessary, it would extend the length of the base article ridiculously if the two were amalgamated. Your second and third sentences don't make sense; Misplaced Pages articles don't need to be read by anyone to be included. If no-one read the article on Bede (or <insert obscure but notable person here>) simply because no-one cared about him anymore, do you think it likely we'd omit him from the enyclopedia? No. —Anonymous Dissident 08:05, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
- Misplaced Pages is not a blog. The information in this article already exists on that page and other pages. Also, the point was that the page is being maintained by a editors who find it more convenient to edit on one page as if it were a blog, rather than to organize the information into the pages that were created for that purpose. The obscurity of any article is not an issue. Becky Sayles (talk) 08:22, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
- Misplaced Pages is not a paper encyclopedia. The article you mention does chronicle the games, but not as completely as the article you have nominated for deletion does. While the information on the nominated page is necessary, it would extend the length of the base article ridiculously if the two were amalgamated. Your second and third sentences don't make sense; Misplaced Pages articles don't need to be read by anyone to be included. If no-one read the article on Bede (or <insert obscure but notable person here>) simply because no-one cared about him anymore, do you think it likely we'd omit him from the enyclopedia? No. —Anonymous Dissident 08:05, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
- No article is "necessary", so it is unclear what you mean. Don't 2008 Summer Olympics and associated articles adequately chronicle the games? Why is it necessary to have it information in a format that seems motivated more by the editors who want to keep up with current events than by the people who will read it? What criteria for inclusion are you suggesting? Encyclopedias typically do not take this form, wikipedia is not a blog nor is it a news feed.Becky Sayles (talk) 07:55, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks for that little note, but I don't need to be messaged on my talk page. I think this was a very poor nomination, firstly because it is a necessary article chronicling the progress of the 2008 Olympic Games. It meets the criteria for inclusion as it is a comprehensive tracking of the accrued gold medals, and this is within the encyclpedic "plane" in my experience. I strongly advise the nominator than haranguing the keepers will not result in a change of result for this AfD of an article that fully deserves to be kept and should not have been nominated in the first place. —Anonymous Dissident 07:40, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
- user does not address nominationBecky Sayles (talk) 06:36, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
- Keep Uh yeah, no. Follows in the tradition of 2006 Winter Olympics highlights and is perfectly acceptable. Geologik (talk) 06:28, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
- ok, I'm nominating that one too.Becky Sayles (talk) 06:36, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
- Comment It's unfortunate, that instead of working to improve articles, ridiculous exercises such as this pull people away constructive contributions. It's also too bad that Wikipedians can't nominate their fellow editors for deletion. ;) Geologik (talk) 07:06, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
- Becky Sayles, please be aware of WP:POINT. Depending on the outcome of this AfD the other one will surely be dealt with the same way. Geologic, although I appreciate you're being lighthearted, please don't address the nominator - address the nomination Witty Lama 07:08, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
- ok, I'm nominating that one too.Becky Sayles (talk) 06:36, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
- Keep It's very useful actually, and the fact that it is incosistent with articles on previous Olympics is actually a critique directed at those articles, not this one. Timbouctou (talk) 06:33, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
- How is this article useful? how is that a criterion for being kept? It reads like a blog, and simply duplicates information already present in other articles more appropriately organized under the page for the 2008 Olympic games and related individual sports. Becky Sayles (talk) 06:44, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
- Keep --KSA 06:41, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
- Afd is not a vote.Becky Sayles (talk) 06:45, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
- Speedy Keep no valid rationale given for deletion. JuJube (talk) 06:42, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
- What is invalid about removing duplicated information from existing, better organized articles? Becky Sayles (talk) 06:46, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
- You do not give a valid rationale for deletion. "Not encyclopedic", "possible NPOV violations" and "not consistent with MOS" are reasons to cleanup, not delete. JuJube (talk) 06:48, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
- So isn't duplicating material from other articles a good reason for deletion. There is already a page 2008 Summer Olympics for the games. Also, there are individual pages for sports results:
- You do not give a valid rationale for deletion. "Not encyclopedic", "possible NPOV violations" and "not consistent with MOS" are reasons to cleanup, not delete. JuJube (talk) 06:48, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
- What is invalid about removing duplicated information from existing, better organized articles? Becky Sayles (talk) 06:46, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
|
There's no legitimate purpose for keeping this page. It's basically a blog for a current event.Becky Sayles (talk) 06:55, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
- Speedy Keep - useful and important part of the series of articles regarding the olympics, a source of concise results information for readers. this article is a good place to document the games as they unfold and should be kept for the duration of the games, however we could consider merging the articles once the games are through. - preschooler@heart 06:43, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
- So you're saying keep and then merge? doesn't make sense. See WP:NOT. If readers want a source of concise results they can go to the official website for the games or any of the olympics related websites. We don't need an article on the games, and then another article on the highlights of the games. It doesn't make sense. Becky Sayles (talk) 06:50, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
- I am saying that the information covered in this article is important and useful in the context of the event covered, and I can speak from my own edits that the information collected is from varied sources to form a rounded coverage of the topic presented. Like an encyclopedia. Which, from my best deductive skills, is what we're going for with this whole silly wiki"pedia" notion. And if we decide later that it's appropriate to merge it with the main article, that's for a different time, but at least for the duration of the games this article has served as a "Current Events section for the olympic coverage.- preschooler@heart 07:01, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
- So you're saying keep and then merge? doesn't make sense. See WP:NOT. If readers want a source of concise results they can go to the official website for the games or any of the olympics related websites. We don't need an article on the games, and then another article on the highlights of the games. It doesn't make sense. Becky Sayles (talk) 06:50, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
- Speedy Keep. This information very well could be on the main article for the 2008 Olympics, but that article is way too long already, and it's a good thing that this is split off by itself. Benjaminx (talk) 06:52, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
- Why is it a good thing to be split off? It doesn't just duplicate information from 2008 Summer Olympics, it copies from the individual sports articles too. If it doesn't belong in the main article, and it doesn't belong in the individual sports articles, then it doesn't belong in it's own article.Becky Sayles (talk) 07:00, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
- It does belong in the main article, but there's not enough room. That page is already way too big for many users without broadband, so it has subarticles like this one. Also, I think it's snowing. Benjaminx (talk) 07:04, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
- It's been up for less than a day.Becky Sayles (talk) 07:14, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
- It does belong in the main article, but there's not enough room. That page is already way too big for many users without broadband, so it has subarticles like this one. Also, I think it's snowing. Benjaminx (talk) 07:04, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
- Why is it a good thing to be split off? It doesn't just duplicate information from 2008 Summer Olympics, it copies from the individual sports articles too. If it doesn't belong in the main article, and it doesn't belong in the individual sports articles, then it doesn't belong in it's own article.Becky Sayles (talk) 07:00, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
- Keep BeckySayles should wait a month after the Olympics end so that articles are no longer in flux. This article is of use at the moment at the very least. 70.55.85.40 (talk) 07:05, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
- Keep Listen, a dozen+ people have voted keep. Only you Sayles wants to delete. Is this a democratic vote or not? The individual sports articles have nearly ZERO content aside from numbers and names. This hilight page gives some human aspects to the events at the Olympics. For example, being the first gold medalist for your country ever is an interesting and exciting event not normally mentioned in individual articles. Being on the verge of defeat is something you can't deduce from simple numbers.76.124.8.58 (talk) 07:09, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
- Actually no, it's not a democratic vote. See WP:POLLS. How does it give human aspects to the events? and if it does, shouldn't that be moved to the individual articles? or described in words on those articles? Becky Sayles (talk) 07:13, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
- You're right - this is not a vote. A sheer weight of numbers pushing for one outcome or the other has no value here. Rather, it is the weight of the arguments. Witty Lama 07:15, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
- Actually no, it's not a democratic vote. See WP:POLLS. How does it give human aspects to the events? and if it does, shouldn't that be moved to the individual articles? or described in words on those articles? Becky Sayles (talk) 07:13, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
- Keep. Becky Sayles, I appreciate that "it's interesting" is not a valid reason for an article. However, your pointing out that it is duplicate information does not warrant its deletion. As it is, the Olympics wikiproject decided against having articles for every day of competition. Rather they keep the information on the pages for the various nations and also for the various sports. And so, although the information on who won what event is listed elsewhere, this page represents the only place on Misplaced Pages where the information is presented all in the one place and chronologically. This format for viewing the information is unique and also encyclopedic as it does show the sequence of medals - important historically. Witty Lama 07:15, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
- If the Olympics wikiproject made such decisions, then why does this page exist? If consensus was already reached that chronological documentation of events was unwanted, then that would suggest this page should be deleted.Becky Sayles (talk) 07:21, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
- I believe that there are no daily pages because of this page, not in spite of it. I presume that if this page, and others like, it were deleted then there would be a re-looking at the creating daily pages. I personally would like to see both but somehow I don't think you'd agree. :-) Witty Lama 07:35, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
- What purpose would it serve to have either? Doesn't it make sense to have the information in the pages that are easily identified by name? like Gymnastics_at_the_2008_Summer_Olympics. If someone wants to learn about that, then they can click on the link thats on the main article for the games? And if they're looking for information related to specific days of the games, that's listed on the main article in the form of a table.Becky Sayles (talk) 07:59, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
- I believe that there are no daily pages because of this page, not in spite of it. I presume that if this page, and others like, it were deleted then there would be a re-looking at the creating daily pages. I personally would like to see both but somehow I don't think you'd agree. :-) Witty Lama 07:35, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
- If the Olympics wikiproject made such decisions, then why does this page exist? If consensus was already reached that chronological documentation of events was unwanted, then that would suggest this page should be deleted.Becky Sayles (talk) 07:21, 11 August 2008 (UTC)